Bad to have a WR/RB or QB/RB or QB/WR from same NFL team? - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Bad to have a WR/RB or QB/RB or QB/WR from same NFL team?

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby BrutallyHuge » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:16 pm

A Hasselbeck/DJax/KRob/Alexander combo would be funny. Probably one of the only teams with top notch guys at all 4 positions (maybe Rams).
BrutallyHuge
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5971
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Illadelph

Postby Justifiable_Sin » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:24 pm

I believe it really depends on the players and especially the team targeted...

case in point...the winner of one of my leagues last year owned T.Green, Holmes and Gonzalez

sadly though...there was also a team that owned Stewart, Thomas and Booker of the Bears
(Ill let you guess what place he finished in)
***A clear conscience is only a clear sign of a horrible memory***
Justifiable_Sin
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 564
Joined: 8 Aug 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: on foot...approximately 40 miles south of the mental institution

Postby Free Bagel » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:25 pm

I think most people that have a problem with combos would be more inclined to avoid a #1 WR/#1 RB then what you have.

The problem with having a #1/#1 combo is that essentially, if that team has a bad game that week, you're done as well. Your combo is your #2 WR/#2 RB, which are generally inconsistent anyhow. You expect your #2 guys to have down weeks anyway, so I don't see any problem with having a combo from your #2 guys.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby Turnip » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:36 pm

arrbez wrote:none of those combo's would really bother me. but having two WR's from the same team is usually a fairly bad idea. i've seen a couple people with the robinson/jackson combo on their team, and it's just not a great plan


Can you explain why Holt/Bruce is not a good plan? In only *one* week besides week 17 did neither Bruce nor Holt get a touchdown. (In that ugly game against the Ravens). That's consistency. Usually if Holt didn't score, Bruce did. Also, a lot of people think Holt's numbers will tumble because Bulger will be forced to check it down to Bruce rather than go long, because of the O-line. This only hurts Holt as much as it boosts Bruce. I think having these two (and not the QB) is a fine plan.
Turnip
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Cafe RankerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1283
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: NC State or Winston-Salem, NC

Postby Grim » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:40 pm

QB/WR is the only thing that can really get you in trouble, cuz if the QB has a bad day, RB has a bad day as well. . . . I did the Hasselback/Alexander last year though and it was wonderful

Sometimes the entire team does suck, but usually QB and RB can make up for each other
Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one.
Do you enjoy criticizing people's a**holes?
Grim
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff


Posts: 114
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On A Street Corner ;)

Postby Plindsey88 » Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:21 pm

Turnip wrote:
arrbez wrote:none of those combo's would really bother me. but having two WR's from the same team is usually a fairly bad idea. i've seen a couple people with the robinson/jackson combo on their team, and it's just not a great plan


Can you explain why Holt/Bruce is not a good plan? In only *one* week besides week 17 did neither Bruce nor Holt get a touchdown. (In that ugly game against the Ravens). That's consistency. Usually if Holt didn't score, Bruce did. Also, a lot of people think Holt's numbers will tumble because Bulger will be forced to check it down to Bruce rather than go long, because of the O-line. This only hurts Holt as much as it boosts Bruce. I think having these two (and not the QB) is a fine plan.


Interesting thought, and remarkebly insightful for a Wolfpack fan... But, I guess that might explain the love for Torry Holt...

I actually think you might have a good counter example, here, and there always are counter examples in any situation... I might not mind having Toomer and Hilliard as my number 2 and number 3 IF Eli was his brother and the team was studly...

The problem with your supposition here is that it assumes the Rams will not suck this year, and I'm not sure you can make that assumption... IF they continue to be the greatest show on turf, you might be right that a Holt / Bruce combo would pretty much guarantee 1 or more TD's every week out of the WR position... But, you have to consider that it also pretty much guarantees that you do not get a HUGE day out of both guys at the same time... And, if the Rams decide to suck this season or if Bulger breaks an arm in week one, then you are doubly screwed...

Give me T.O. and Andre Johnson over Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce any day of the week and twice on Sunday...
Image

Signature courtesy of: madaslives911
Plindsey88
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 10241
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Turnip » Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:02 pm

Plindsey88 wrote:
Turnip wrote:
arrbez wrote:none of those combo's would really bother me. but having two WR's from the same team is usually a fairly bad idea. i've seen a couple people with the robinson/jackson combo on their team, and it's just not a great plan


Can you explain why Holt/Bruce is not a good plan? In only *one* week besides week 17 did neither Bruce nor Holt get a touchdown. (In that ugly game against the Ravens). That's consistency. Usually if Holt didn't score, Bruce did. Also, a lot of people think Holt's numbers will tumble because Bulger will be forced to check it down to Bruce rather than go long, because of the O-line. This only hurts Holt as much as it boosts Bruce. I think having these two (and not the QB) is a fine plan.


Interesting thought, and remarkebly insightful for a Wolfpack fan... But, I guess that might explain the love for Torry Holt...

I actually think you might have a good counter example, here, and there always are counter examples in any situation... I might not mind having Toomer and Hilliard as my number 2 and number 3 IF Eli was his brother and the team was studly...

The problem with your supposition here is that it assumes the Rams will not suck this year, and I'm not sure you can make that assumption... IF they continue to be the greatest show on turf, you might be right that a Holt / Bruce combo would pretty much guarantee 1 or more TD's every week out of the WR position... But, you have to consider that it also pretty much guarantees that you do not get a HUGE day out of both guys at the same time... And, if the Rams decide to suck this season or if Bulger breaks an arm in week one, then you are doubly screwed...

Give me T.O. and Andre Johnson over Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce any day of the week and twice on Sunday...


It's true that Holt/Bruce won't give you "a HUGE day out of both guys." However, I'd prefer the consistency of one good day and one "bad" day every week to not knowing what to expect out of my receivers from week to week. I'd rather have my opponent beat me than to beat myself. I do think the Rams could possibly suck this year, but if they do suck that would mean they would fall behind in many games. I can see the Rams throwing even more because they're behind, not bringing down the value of the receivers. Bulger getting injured would hurt, I agree. But a Bulger injury is the only way I can see the Rams "Greatest show on turf" offensive philosophy changing.

I think the pro of consistency balances the con of a "double whammy" injury. I don't think that actually trying to get a pair is smart, but I think the balance is enough that one wouldn't pass on Bruce for a weaker WR because they play on the same team. I'm not 100% convinced of my position but I don't think like the idea of passing up value.

PS Thanks for your insight, Plindsey88, surprising that something from a Nole fan can cause me to reconsider my position. :-b
Turnip
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Cafe RankerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1283
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: NC State or Winston-Salem, NC

Postby CC » Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:12 pm

Yea going after one of these duos is a bad idea. I remember being called an idiot in a mock draft because I took Culpepper over McNabb and I already had a TO. The guy said I was really stupid for not "doubling up". Then again this same guy took Peyton Manning 4th overall.
Image
I ain't no suit-wearin' businessman like you... you know I'm just a gangsta I suppose... - Avon Barksdale
CC
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11079
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The Big House.

Postby TheRawDAWG » Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:45 pm

I just read in the monday morning QB in SI that Payton should be taken 4th overall. Not sure I totally believe it but he made a good point of getting the sure fire guy thats going to get 4200 yrds and 28 TDs rather than a risky RB. It makes sense on a certain level. Especially since it's been proven most of the time not many RBs in the top eight match that feat the next year. Something to think about....And also something to say 'Hey just cause someone drafts differently than you doesn't mean they are a moron'.

I do however disagree with this guy that McNabb should be taken ahead of Culpepper though.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
TheRawDAWG
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1599
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Up in Canada

Postby Turnip » Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:49 pm

It's not that Manning doesn't consistently put up great numbers,

it's just that the top backs put up so much better numbers than the lower backs. Manning isn't going to blow away the rest of the QB's the way the elite RB's will.
Turnip
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Cafe RankerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 1283
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: NC State or Winston-Salem, NC

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 16:21 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact